Figure out an easy TIB tying method for Scott s locked TIB bowline

[xarax]

most people who don't know better call them with the same name. Imagine the confusion if cattlemen referred to every animal in their herds as "cows"!

So, would you propose to call those two topologically different animals, the ABoK#1010 and the ABoK1034.5, by an altogether different name ? Say, the one as bow-line and the other as stern-line ? OK, you go for it, and you start spewing volumes of arguments in favour of it ...This time, I will do the swallowing...
The two forms of the bowline are topologically different, but they are still called by the same noun - like eating same piece of beef, only with a different sauce on it. Same happens with the two forms of Scott s locked bowline : same lock, same key, only you have to turn the one key of the one knot clock-wise and the other key of the other knot counter-clockwise.
I do not trust the names of the knots...Too often they are misleading, indeed, and they do not help / allow people to distinguish differences or similarities which the should had noticed right away. However, the human mind works this way - and it may even be the case that the human mind can work, because it can work that way.

[James Petersen]

most people who don't know better call them with the same name. Imagine the confusion if cattlemen referred to every animal in their herds as "cows"!

So, would you propose to call those two topologically different animals, the ABoK#1010 and the ABoK1034.5, by an altogether different name ?

No. I have no desire to change the names currently used. What I do propose is calling them by the names they have now, to wit: the bowline/right-handed bowline and the left-handed/cowboy bowline, with the addition of Scott's lock. The purpose of my proposal is to be clear about which of these can be modified into the knot which is the subject of this thread ( by using the mechanism of the lock in this thread, your modification of Scott's lock, which can only be used as a modification of a left-handed/cowboy bowline.

...
The two forms of the bowline are topologically different, but they are still called by the same noun ...

Actually cows/bulls/steers/heifers/and oxen are all different in their own ways, but are all called cows, when the distinction is unimportant. In certain instances, it is important that distinctions be made (castration, milking, and breeding, to
name a few). In the case of the lock which is the subject of this thread, the distinction is important.  The Scott's lock applied to a right-hand bowline is not the same as the Scott's lock applied to a cowboy bowline is not the same as a Scott's lock applied to Eskimo bowlines (with the tail on the inside or outside).

- like eating same piece of beef, only with a different sauce on it.
...

Wrong. The beef is not the same. The meat of bulls and steers is different. Bulls (and oxen) are much more muscular and tend to have stringier, tougher meat than steers. The meat of calves (known as veal) is the tenderest of all. And you can't get veal from a 5-year-old bull.

...
I do not trust the names of the knots...Too often they are misleading, indeed, and they do not help / allow people to distinguish differences or similarities which the should had noticed right away.

Precisely! And what I hope to achieve by my proposal is clarity, not obfuscation, which I believe calling this knot simply a "simple modification of a Scott's locked bowline" causes through lack of precision. Scott did not propose that his modification be made to a left-handed/cowboy bowline, although it can be applied to that knot. The the current modification cannot be applied to a right-handed bowline, and I believe that this fact should be reflected in the name.

-- J:P

[xarax]

   I agree we should be more precise / descriptive when choosing names for new ( or even old ! ) knots - although the two forms of Scott s locked bowline are only a "detail" in this. See what is happening in the four different variations of the "Eskimo" bowline : they do not even have names ! 

[James Petersen]

   I agree we should be more precise / descriptive when choosing names for new ( or even old ! ) knots - although the two forms of Scott s locked bowline are only a "detail" in this. See what is happening in the four different variations of the "Eskimo" bowline : they do not even have names ! 

Only a detail when referring to Scott's modification. I am sure that when Scott goes climbing with his family/friends and introduces them to this knot, he surely says something like, "First tie a bowline (meaning a right-handed bowline) and then do this..." and he shows them how to tuck the tail and arrive at his modification. If he wanted to show them how versatile this modification is, he could teach them about right-handed and left-handed bowlines and how the came mod can be used on both.

Surely if you were showing/teaching/telling someone how to tie this knot which is the subject of this thread, your mod of his mod, so to speak -- not tying in the bight mind you, that's really complicated -- you would tell them to start by tying a left-handed bowline and, continue from there.

Now my lesson would probably go something like this:

Alright, kids, do you see this rope? Well, the rope is a tree and look here (twist the rope to create a turNip) -- this is the hole, and this (the working end) is the rabbit. Now watch as the rabbit runs out of the hole, runs around the tree and back into the hole. Now we have just tied a knot called a bowline. 

Now look at your bowlnes. Some of you have bowlines where the rabbit is inside the loop don't you? Well, the loop is the meadow and your rabbit is home. There are a couple of you whose rabbits are not inside the meadow, aren't there? Well these little rabbits are out on the range with the cowboys and you have just tied cowboy bowlines.

Now when your little rabbits are running around outside of the hole, they have to be very careful and watch out for the evil X-man who will shoot them with his machine gun and feed them to his python! .... 

-- J:P

[James Petersen]

Some photos and a video of the way I do it.

Video at: https://archive.org/details/CwbyBowlineScottLoX01 .

[James Petersen]

5/7 -- 7/7

[Luca]

Thank you James,
I like your method because, unlike as when using the methods proposed here by kd8eeh and me, the tail and the standing part they find themselves in a natural way in the right position relative to one another.

[xarax]

  Nice.
  I believe you do not need the second picture ( the third picture is enough - and it might well be the first, because it just shows a slipped bight, a very familiar image to knot tyers ). On the contrary, you should use this saving and better add another image in between the third and the fourth, when you will show the formation of the bight on the white segment, and how you put in the place shown in the fourth image. To my view, the sequence is too slow between the first and the third image, and too fast between the third and the fouth.

[James Petersen]

Another series. Any better?

-- J:P

[James Petersen]

4 more.

[James Petersen]

Last of 9.

[xarax]

   In all your 9 pictures/stages, the white eye leg is at the lower side of the frame - except in the second ! I believe you should show the transformation from the second to the third stage with some other way. that will not involve a flip of the whole eye, like the one you show in this series. This was the point one could lose you in the previous demonstration, and, although now things have been improved, I feel that there is still a discontinuity, a "jump" there, that you can iron out even more.

[James Petersen]

Not exactly on topic, but I don't have enough hands! I actually considered threading a wire through the rope to make it easier to make it hold in certain positions. Then I looked up clay animation on Wikipedia to see if I could get some pointers on stop-motion animation (which making these series of photos seems like).

Low and behold, they use wire frames (called armatures in claymation). Does anyone have experience in doing the like with strings/ropes for purposes of photography?

-- J:P

[xarax]

   THAT is it !  Congratulations ! Now we have a smoothly evolving series of pictures, which pose no problem to the average knot tyer to follow. I can not say how many of them are absolutely necessary, and how many can be omitted or merged with other, before or after them. However, the basic spinal cord of the sequence is fine !
   ( When I was young, there were some flexible rulers (1) that had a core made of lead, so they could easily bend and remain in the position they were put. However, I think that the world had advanced since then a little bit ! You can draw with a CAD program whatever you like, very easily - you only have to draw the path of the rope in 3D using NURBS, and then use other easily implemented tools to "feed" this path, so it gets a certain radius you like, that will show the ropes at the front without hiding the ropes at the back too much. Those curves can be controlled with "control points", and drawn so they resemble "elastic curves", a "natural" kind of curves we see when we bend flexible elastic materials ).

1. They are still there ! Search the Google Images for "flexible curve" :
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_spline
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesbian_rule
   http://www.amazon.com/C-THRU-FLEXIBLE-20-RULER/dp/B002BGRFV8

[SS369]

Hi JP.

Off topic reply:
Inserting a wire for this purpose will be a chore and then you have to arrange things smoothly to take the picture.
My offered suggestion is to place some soft board (Styrofoam or cork or whatever) behind the backing sheet (in your current photos blue) then use small push pins in strategic locations. The small heads will be lightly noticeable (who cares?), but inconsequential. Or you can edit them with a dab of color (More work!).

Thanks for the pictures BTW!
You too X!
 

SS